On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 9:21 AM, Stephan Bosch <stephan(_at_)rename-it(_dot_)nl>
wrote:
<snip>
Ok, I did some preliminary implementation of the new commands. Regarding the
NOOP command I have only one (nitpicking) remark. The managesieve
specification explicitly lists which commands are valid before
authentication. However, by introducing extensions this becomes a little
more sketchy. The RENAMESCRIPT command is clearly not useful before
authentication. However, implementors with IMAP experience might think of
allowing NOOP before authentication, because in IMAP the NOOP command may
be issued before authentication.
failing to allow NOOP as may be expected violates the principle of
least surprise.
is there any reason for this?
in general, this protocol seems more than a little peculiar. it's
close in syntax to IMAP but has enough differences for IMAP
implementors to be surprised and confused by the differences.
is there any reason for this choice?
- robert